Assignment Help | You will need to use this critical appraisal tool and evaluate items 6 to 9. (Note: you do not need to evaluate item 10 for this assessment.)

This assessment should be no longer than 2 A4 pages. See the subject outline for more information

This INDIVIDUAL assessment task focuses on critical appraisal of an epidemiological study published in a peer-reviewed journal article. The purpose of this assessment item is to give students an introduction to the appraisal of epidemiological studies.

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW AT writtask.com |

Weight: 25%

Task
You will need to use this critical appraisal tool and evaluate items 6 to 9. (Note: you do not need to evaluate item 10 for this assessment.) You will need to include its assessment (ie Yes, No, Unclear or Not Applicable) for each item, and justify your choice. Also make sure you use appropriate epidemiological language. For example, if you have concerns about measurement error, indicate what type of measurement error you have identified (eg, non-differential misclassification error) and the effects on the study\’s results and validity.

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW AT writtask.com |

In your answer, you will also need to answer the following question:

based on items 1 to 9 of the critical appraisal checklist, do you have any concerns about the internal validity of the study
Make sure that you justify your answer appropriately. You can base your answer for the final question on Assessment 3 and 4.

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW AT writtask.com |

Paper
The paper is McManus et al \”Usual Cruciferous Vegetable Consumption and Ovarian Cancer: A Case-Control Study\”.

Marking criteria
50% Explains relevant methodological issues, including bias, with available data
40% Constructs critique and summary of issue, including synthesised view and opinion from readings and class discussion
10% Constructs coherent and cohesive information, including clarity of thought depth of content, logical organisation and precision of arguments.

SAMPLE SOLUTION

Question 1

            Yes. The groups were comparable. In the article, the control group was an exact representative of the source population. Two data sets were used with one made up of patients that had definitive cancer diagnosis. This acted as the case while the control was made of those who had benign PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW AT writtask.com | factors included intake of cruciferous vegetables (for cancer reduction cases) as compared to those who didn’t take such vegetables being linked to ovarian cancer.

Question 2

Yes. The cases and controls were appropriately PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW AT writtask.com | had been subjected to different types of cancer (fallopian, ovary, peritoneum or fallopian tubes) were exactly matched to the controls based on a five year strata (Petimar et al., 2017).

Question 3

Yes. The same criterion was used to come up with the cases as well as the control. For both, the methodology involved selecting all women that had received diagnosis for all the PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW AT writtask.com | control used therefore met the eligibility criteria as it was derived from the bigger sample space.

Question 4 Yes. Arguments based on PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW AT writtask.com | eta-analysis in this research article can be used as the gold standard to prove the validity of the results and hence the methodology used in the study. Based on meta-analysis, the researchers in this article argue that there has PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW AT writtask.com | a genuine interest in using cruciferous vegetable consumption and other lifestyle habits in reducing…